Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Recently, my FB friend James Mulholland posted this quote and asked what people thought of it.

“The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank.” - Dante Gabriel Rossetti

Everyday on Facebook, I see believers quickly bypass the work of their fellow humans, so they can get on with the business of lauding their god. The doctor who healed them, the chef who prepared their meal, the farmer who grew their food, the stranger who helped get their car back on the road, etc. All of these people get a footnote, while the big thanks goes to an unseen, unheard ghost whose interactions do not differ from chance.

I was guilty of this misplacement of gratitude for many years. My appreciation for my fellow travelers on the road of life grew exponentially when I started giving credit to whom the credit was due.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Supergirl was leaked months ahead of its debut. I tend to think this "leak" is actually a beta testing. If so, I hope they make use of it.

First, what I liked. I think Melissa Benoist is going to be an outstanding Supergirl. I always love when an actor can communicate as much with a raised eyebrow or a curl of the lip as they can with a line. Benoist's face literally broadcasts her emotions. She is fun to watch and I enjoyed her character. She can carry this show.

It is clear that the producers are going for a lighter tone - more CW Flash than WB Man of Steel. It's working for The Flash, so I tend to think this is a wise move.

I loved their take on Jimmy Olsen. Rather than the innocent newbie, it was great to see him portrayed as a seasoned photo journalist. If this show goes long term, I think they would do well to give him lots of story time.

Now... since there is time for re-shoots...

Ditch the opening scene. Change it, or skip it all together. The opening should be powerful, but this looked like something from an old Saturday morning kids show. Their planet is about to be shredded, parents and child are saying goodbye forever.... and the scene was delivered with all the emotion of ordering a #3 meal at the drive-thru.

There is a scene in the Simpsons where Lisa wants to be subversive and signs up for the community football team. She is deflated when she arrives at the first practice to find out there are already girls on it. At least a half dozen times in Supergirl they stop the story in order to announce, "the hero is a girl.... weren't expecting that, were ya!" Except we were... we are. We are totally cool with female superheroes and have been for awhile. Only certain strands of Hollywood seem to think there is something awkward about female hero leads. When you keep referencing it scene after scene, you sound like you are trying to talk us into this concept. We are great with it... why can't you be?

Something needs to be reworked with the Superman references. His being on the planet, and yet never talking to her, never seeing her... it just felt rather unbelievable. Not sure what would work, but I am sure this approach doesn't.

Get rid of Mr. Surly-in-charge-of-anti-alien-task-force. Bleech!

All in all, there is some great potential here. I enjoyed the pilot.

... hoping Supergirl soars!

(oh, and btw... it is clear that The Flash is now part of a multi-verse.... cross -o-ver!)

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Last week, I was using public transit to get to work. Occasionally, one gets a chatty bus driver. During our conversation it came up that I am originally from Detroit, which brought the usual question:

"What brought you out here to Salt Lake?"

I try to avoid that question, but often there is no getting around it. People want to know. The problem is, it is a lot to tell in a short duration, but I have worked it out:

"I came out here to help start an evangelical church. However, we parted ways when I started to lose my faith, and I am now an atheist."

I get varied responses to this declaration, but his was the most common:

"Oh...... I'm sorry....."

The bus driver then began to fill me in on his spiritual journey. He was raised in a Mormon household, went on a mission, but he doesn't really practice anymore.

"I'm still a member. I guess I still believe. So... I suppose I am what they call a Jack-Mormon".

As you know, or probably have guessed, a Jack-Mormon is the term for Mormons who are not active in their faith. They are still part of the culture, perhaps attend church for baptisms and other ceremonies occasionally. But for all intent and purposes, they are fairly disconnected.

For the few minutes remaining in our trip, he stayed on religion. He told me about various family members who had turned away from faith but came back. How, at some point, he wants to start attending church more.

He was still talking when we came to my stop and the bus pulled to the curb. I thanked him for the lift and stepped off the bus. He called out one parting comment:

"I mean hey.... ya gotta believe something, right?"

I turned back and smiled:

"No..... you really don't."

And the bus pulled away.

The "ya gotta believe something" line is a refrain I often hear from nominal believers. For all practical purposes my bus driver doesn't believe. If he believed his faith he would be doing what his faith wants him to do: attend church, study his scriptures, tithe, seek converts, etc. He does none of that, yet he still "believes". Why is that?

My suspicion is that the cost is too high socially. It is a battle with family, friends, co-workers, (and himself), that he is simply not interested in engaging. "Ya gotta believe something" is simply the path of least resistance.

Ten years or so from now, I believe folks like the bus driver will easily accept a position of atheism. Right now the social stress is simply not worth it... but that is changing. For all of the growth unbelief has seen in the past decade, it's biggest blossoming is still ahead. As social acceptability of unbelief grows, a lot of people like my bus driver are going to recognize their lack of engagement for what it really is - a lack of belief.

Rather than feeling they HAVE to believe something, they will recognize... no, you really don't.

Friday, May 08, 2015

The Deseret News is a Utah newspaper owned by the LDS church. As such, the newspaper has a highly edited feel. It's not just bluntly conservative it's... churchy...

This week the entertainment columnist, Chris Hicks, took Captain America to task for swearing in The Avengers: Age of Ultron. He writes:

The first scenes of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” drop the audience into the middle of a chaotic battle, and that is where most of the film’s witty quips are frontloaded — a highlight being a gag about goody two-shoes Captain America being offended when Iron Man curses.

As a result, for the rest of the movie Cap is the butt of jokes about cuss words — until, at the end, he finally lets go with a profane phrase of his own.

Wow. Isn't that a great lesson for young people in the audience? If you are ridiculed for taking the moral high ground, by all means just let down your guard, violate your principles and join the crowd.

Mr. Hicks falls into a typical, self-serving, religious trap. Swear words, cuss words, whatever you want to call them are not moral markers. A person is no more moral for saying them than they are for not saying them. To indicate so is to cheapen morality.

Swear words fall into the realm of mores... social customs. In this or that society certain words or phrases may be considered impolite or rude... but those are only constructs which vary from time to time and location to location.

If I were to say, "Da*n! that is a f**king good pastry!" I may offend your sensibilities, but I have done you no HARM. It is wrong to equalize offense with harm. It is an injustice to people who have truly been wronged.

So why is it self serving? It allows the person who holds such a position to think themselves to be on a moral "high-ground", when in fact... they have DONE nothing. To claim a moral position due to a lack of cuss words in your vocabulary is cheap, and it is lazy.

Monday, May 04, 2015

I write quite a bit. I enjoy the process of writing like I enjoy a good conversation.

I believe written conversations have an advantage of being able to take time to present an issue or idea, or to formulate a response.

When someone poses questions or presents an argument to me in written format, I like being able to go through their writing multiple times, maybe even quoting from it, to make sure I have honestly and adequately addressed their thoughts. Sometimes I will rewrite things four or five times before hitting send.

So, when someone asks me to respond to something, and I take the time to do so... only to have them delete it.... that doesn't tend to sit well with me.

This came about due to an old friend who recently friended me on Facebook. This person is a Christian... and... well ... when you are an atheist, you can't help but categorize your believing friends under various headings. There is the fundamentalist asshole you keep around purely for entertainment purposes. There are the good souls you seem to relate to in EVERY way other than their theism, so you accept each other as-is. There are the ones who have never been particularly active in their faith, yet find it a bit disturbing that you are an atheist.

I am sure I could come up with a number of others if I sat here and thought about it, but in this case, this is the Christian who believes you left the faith because you never had exposure to REAL Christianity. Your atheism is actually somewhat understandable, maybe even justified... because, like Coke, you just need the real thing. If you could only go to their church, or hear this or that pastor, or read a certain book.... you would see.

In that vein, this person posted an article by Shane Claiborne and tagged me in it, asking for my thoughts. I had read the article back when it came out in 2009, but I read it again, and then a third time before writing.

Not long after my posting, my response was deleted.

I hate when people do that... particularly if that was the only copy available of what I wrote. Fortunately, I had written this response in Word. When I asked her why she deleted it, she said that she felt my response would be troubling to many of her believing friends. She deleted and blocked me soon after.

So, since I took time to write that response, I want it to exist somewhere... so here it is. If you have gotten this far, you may want to read the Claiborne article (it's short). I do appreciate theologically liberal, good folks like Shane Claiborne. However, I still find they carry a bagful of false assumptions about those not in their faith, some of which I address below. So without further ado:

I have always appreciated Shane’s generous and compassionate heart. I think he is a humanist, and I admire that, because he is willing to put the needs of people above the dictates of his religion’s dogma (to a degree).However, he steps into the usual misdirections most religious folks fall, in that he cannot not see outside his own perspective. For example, from the article:“To all my nonbelieving, sort-of-believing, and used-to-be-believing friends: I feel like I should begin with a confession. I am sorry that so often the biggest obstacle to God has been Christians. Christians who have had so much to say with our mouths and so little to show with our lives. I am sorry that so often we have forgotten the Christ of our Christianity.”From the beginning he is clear that he sees the world with bi-polar lenses, those who see religion his way… and everybody else. He defines everyone who does not accept his religion - by his religion. If someone does not believe, it is because they have not heard the right message, or been to the right church. Perhaps they have been wounded by someone in the faith. Maybe their heart is hard or bitter toward God because of some pain in their life. If they could just meet the Jesus he knows.I assume Shane does not believe in Mormonism. He doesn’t believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God's restoration, and he doesn’t believe Mormons are God's one true church on the earth. He just doesn’t believe any of it to be true. However picture if a good chunk of his community and family were telling him that it isn't that he doesn’t believe it... rather, it is because he met some bad Mormons, or went to a bad ward, or just hadn’t experienced TRUE Mormonism. Shayne could try to explain that he really just didn’t believe – but they respond that his heart is hard and he should be open to what Joseph Smith might be saying to him.He might appreciate the sincerity of these folks (the first couple dozen times) but he would still find the whole thing absurd.I appreciate Shane’s sincerity, but I still find the whole thing absurd.Also, it is very clear to me that, like all Christians, Shane is making up his own Jesus. Shane says, “if you choose Jesus, may it not be simply because of a fear of hell or hope for mansions in heaven.”He does this a few times – he has an idea of Jesus in his head that is really great… but then he runs into that scriptural Jesus who isn't always so great… Jesus does woo with rewards and punishments… big rewards and punishments. That doesn't work for Shane, so he deflects.Another example, “I was recently asked by a non-Christian friend if I thought he was going to hell. I said, "I hope not. It will be hard to enjoy heaven without you." Again… that bothers him. It would bother ANY good person… but he doesn’t know what to do with it, so he makes it a joke.I talk with Christians all the time who speak like this. They sidestep Hell, try to make it not sound as bad as the Bible does, throw up their hands and say its not for me to judge, etc. They are trying to avoid the very real fact that their God presented in scripture has set up a system where you love him or pay dearly. At least that’s how he is in some parts… other parts not so much. I don’t believe the bible is consistent.So what do I think? I think Shane is a decent human being, trying to be decent, in a religion that is often not decent. He works hard at finding the diamonds in the rough… focusing on the generous and compassionate parts of his Bible, while choosing – consciously or subconsciously- to avoid the more horrible bits. I just think that generates a lot of un-needed work and stress. Let the religion go, continue to be decent, then you won’t have to worry about always having to come up with clever ways to make those bad bits sound good for the sake of fidelity to a religion.